document_intelligence_create_marketing_collateral

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some authentication context, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what exactly gets created (e.g., whether it modifies data or just returns a plan). For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with three sentences: purpose, routing context, and argument list. It front-loads the action name and quickly covers key points. No unnecessary words, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema (indicated by context), the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., created collateral ID, URL, or confirmation). For a domain agent action that routes internally, more context about the dispatch flow and result would be expected. The description is too sparse to fully specify the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the default values in the schema. However, it does not specify expected keys in 'inputs' or constraints, so it only partially compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states 'Run the document_intelligence domain agent action create_marketing_collateral' but does not explain what marketing collateral is or what the action actually produces. It is a tautology that restates the tool name without clarifying the output or distinguishing it from siblings like create_marketing_document or create_sales_collateral.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_marketing_document, create_sales_collateral, or other creation tools. The description provides no context for selection or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.